[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[The Cunctator]

On 6/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
> >Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 6/14/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm hopeful.  Once we've seen the back of that article, I'll begin to
> >>>>consider that Wikipedia has come of age.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Seems more like giving up on the Wikipedia process entirely. What else
> >>>will we decide we "can't be trusted" to write articles about next? And
> >>>will that decision be made in the same haphazard back-channel way this
> >>>one is being made in?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It was an open discussion followed by almost certainly the most
> >>comprehensively documented close we have ever seen.  You can see the
> >>comments the closer made as he considered each point.  The result is
> >>on deletion review but seems to be holding up very well indeed.
> >>
> >>
> >What I'm talking about here is not just the AfD result on its own, but
> >the rush to go _beyond_ it and turn the "merge" result into an outright
> >deletion.
> >
> >Why is it that seven other Wikipedias are apparently "trustworthy"
> >enough to have articles about Daniel Brandt but the English Wikipedia
> >can't have anything more than a redirect, if that? What if we were to
> >translate one of those other articles and put it here on en?
> >
> It strikes me that the recurrence of debates about Brandt is more than
> anything reflective of an obsessive mania to censor anything about the
> man.  To suggest that no one can be trusted to write a neutral article,
> and that that fact alone is enough reason not to have an article at all
> is a gross insult to all those of us who try to maintain a balanced
> approach to what we do, whether on not we have participated in editing
> that and related articles.
>
> There are clearly some people who want the article to remain, and I
> seriously doubt that they are all teenies and trekkies.  Nor can I
> believe that all those who support the article are out to fill it with
> half-truths, or other questionable material   It's about time that the
> obsessives began to accept that there are other constructive
> contributors than themselves.


Seconded.